与「YEAH」相关的搜索结果

ELON MUSK: “We’re going to have universal high income. We’ll basically just issue money to people." "AI and robots are going to make so much stuff and provide so many services that they’ll run out of things to do for humans." "Money will stop being relevant at some point in the future." "AI won’t use human currency. It will care about power and mass: wattage and tonnage.” ME: “So just as you’re becoming a multi-trillionaire, money starts to have less value?” ELON: “Yeah, pretty much.”

Why Most CIOs Are Quietly Praying for Retirement — And the Few Who Aren’t Are About to Get Very Rich I had a moment this week where I was sitting across from a Director of IT and it hit me — this poor bastard has the toughest job in the entire company. The business folks get to be full-time dreamers: “Hey, can we automate this? Can the AI just know what to do? Can it walk my dog while I’m in this meeting?” Meanwhile he’s over there thinking about data security, system reliability, whether some employee is gonna click on an email that says “You’ve won a $1,000 Walmart gift card!”, whether Ukrainian hackers are going to steal their customer data at 2 a.m., and whether his entire team is about to get replaced by three interns and ChatGPT — all while knowing none of this stuff actually works the way the brochures promised. And here’s the part that makes me feel for the guy — for his entire career he’s been rewarded for keeping the machines running and not getting fired. Now we’re asking him to suddenly become a profit center, to be out over his skis with AI initiatives. It’s like telling the hall monitor he’s now responsible for running the company’s underground poker game. Did I just compare our AI software to an underground poker game? Yeah, probably not the best analogy, but hang with me here, I’m rolling. Meanwhile the C-suite is over there wondering why nothing’s happened yet, completely oblivious to the fact that they’ve spent twenty years brutally punishing IT for not playing defense. Hell, I know CIOs who got fired because Windows 95 sucked. The real kicker is how to even get started. Our philosophy has always been to start small — automate one workflow, prove it works, and then compound fast. Smart in theory. In practice, with a big organization, that feels like bringing a birthday candle to a forest fire. The C-suite doesn’t get excited about incremental. They want to see something that actually moves the needle. So you’re stuck trying to thread this ridiculous gap: build something small enough to actually work, get real user adoption, and make sure the vendor isn’t full of shit. Honestly, I don’t envy that seat one bit. At Collide, we’re committed to being real partners with the folks actually doing the building. I’ve got serious scar tissue from getting fired for not being “openly collaborative” with other oil and gas companies on well spacing back in the shale days, and I’m never making that mistake again. We’re gonna share what we learn, educate when we can, and actually listen — God knows we have a lot to learn too. Truth is, my tech guys are dying to find some partners in crime — and I really gotta stop with the crime analogies, I swear that’s not what we’re doing here — because they get all excited explaining the latest and greatest AI breakthrough and I respond with the technical sophistication of a man asking if his rotary phone has Bluetooth. Sip slowly, my friends.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, poses a question to physicist David Deutsch about what it would actually take to believe an AI is thinking: The setup is a discussion of Einstein and general relativity which Altman calls one of the most beautiful things humanity has ever figured out, maybe even number one. But his point isn't about the physics. It's about the story. As Altman puts it: "Einstein had a story. We knew what he was working on." We knew the problems Einstein wrestled with, the questions he chose to chase, and the path he took to get there. That narrative is part of how we recognise genuine understanding. So @sama builds a hypothetical to test the line between imitation and real reasoning: "If in a few years GPT-8 figured out quantum gravity and could tell you its story of how it did it and the problems it was thinking about and why it decided to work on that, but it still just looked like a language model output but it really did solve it… would that be enough to convince you?" In other words: not just the right answer, but the reasoning, the choices, the why this problem. The same things we'd want from any human physicist. Deutsch's response is short: "I think it would. Yeah." And Altman accepts it as the bar: "I agree to that as the test." The real test for AI might not be whether it can pass as human, but whether it can produce something genuinely new: solving a problem that's eluded us for a century and account for how and why it got there. Output alone isn't enough. The story is what makes it convincing.

What in the fuck are they doing No fan of God of War is going to want to play this woke ass garbage Yeah let me swap from playing as motherfucking Kratos THE GOD OF WAR A man who fucks multiple woman at once and kills the gods themselves To a mid ass mid 40 yo white woman Absolutely horrendous Hard skip Gay as fuck

Larry Page wanted to build a digital god. "He really seemed to want some sort of digital superintelligence. Basically a digital god, if you will. As soon as possible." Elon Musk asked: "What about making sure humanity's okay here?" Page called him a speciesist. "I said yes, I'm a speciesist. You got me. What are you? I'm fully a speciesist. Busted." Musk spent 10 minutes with Tucker Carlson explaining why he created OpenAI: Tucker asked the basic question. "All of a sudden AI is everywhere. People are playing with it on their phones. Is that good or bad?" Musk starts with first principles. "The smartest creatures as far as we know on this Earth are humans. That's our defining characteristic." "We're obviously weaker than chimpanzees. Less agile. But we are smarter." "Now. What happens when something vastly smarter than the smartest person comes along in silicon form?" "It's very difficult to predict what will happen in that circumstance." He explains the singularity. "It's called the singularity. Like a black hole. Because you don't know what happens after that." "It's hard to predict." He argues for regulation. "I think there should be some government oversight. Because it affects the public. It's a danger to the public." "That's why we have the Food and Drug Administration. The Federal Aviation Administration. The FCC." "We have these agencies to oversee things that affect the public. Where there could be public harm." "You don't want companies cutting corners on safety. And then having people suffer as a result." He addresses the perception that he fights regulators. "People think I'm some sort of regulatory maverick that defies regulators on a regular basis. But this is actually not the case." "Once in a blue moon, rarely, I will disagree with regulators. But the vast majority of the time my companies agree with the regulations and comply." Tucker asks the obvious question. "All regulations start with a perceived danger. Planes fall out of the sky. I don't think an average person playing with AI on his iPhone perceives any danger." "Can you explain what you think the dangers might be?" Musk's answer. "AI is perhaps more dangerous than mismanaged aircraft design or production maintenance or bad car production." "In the sense that it has the potential. It is a small probability, but it is not trivial." "It has the potential of civilization destruction." He explains the timing problem. "Regulations are really only put into effect after something terrible has happened." "If that's the case for AI, and we only put in regulations after something terrible has happened, it may be too late to put the regulations in place." "They may be out of control at that point." Tucker asks directly. "It's conceivable that AI could take control and reach a point where you couldn't turn it off and it would be making the decisions for people?" Musk's answer. "Yeah. Absolutely." "That's definitely the way things are headed." He explains why OpenAI exists. "Larry Page and I used to be close friends. I would stay at his house in Palo Alto. I would talk to him late in the night about AI safety." "At least my perception was that Larry was not taking AI safety seriously enough." Tucker asked what Page said. "He really seemed to want some sort of digital superintelligence. Basically a digital god, if you will. As soon as possible." Musk pushed back. "I agree there's great potential for good. But there's also potential for bad." "If you have some radical new technology, you want to take actions to maximize the probability it will do good. Minimize the probability it will do bad things." "It can't just be barreling forward and hope for the best." Then the speciesist moment. "At one point I said: what about making sure humanity's okay here?" "And then he called me a speciesist." Tucker: "Did he use that term?" "Yes." "I said yes, I'm a speciesist. You got me. What are you? I'm fully a speciesist. Busted." That was the last straw. "At the time, Google had DeepMind. Google and DeepMind had three-quarters of all the AI talent in the world." "They obviously had a lot of money and more computers than anyone else." "We're in a unipolar world here. One company that has close to a monopoly on AI talent and computers. And the person who's in charge doesn't seem to care about safety." "This is not good." So he created the opposite. "I thought: what's the furthest thing from Google?" "A nonprofit that is fully open. Because Google was closed and for-profit." "Open AI. Open source. Transparent. So people know what's going on." "We don't want this to be a for-profit maximizing demon from hell that just never stops." Tucker asks about the specific danger. "The cool parts of AI are obvious. Write your college paper for you. Write a limerick about yourself. There's a lot that's fun and useful." "But can you be more precise about what's potentially dangerous? What specifically are you worried about?" Musk's answer. "The pen is mightier than the sword." "If you have a superintelligent AI that is capable of writing incredibly well. In a way that is very influential, convincing." "And is constantly figuring out what is more convincing to people over time." "And then enters social media. Twitter. Facebook. Others." "And potentially manipulates public opinion in a way that is very bad." "How would we even know?"

Sam Altman's new interview: AI should not be designed to pursue goals that are disconnected from human needs. People must remain at the center of AI development. “I have no interest in building a super-smart AI that accomplishes some non-human goals. People should react. People should say, ‘Hey, this is what I want, and this is what I do not want.’ I do not think the issue is that we have failed to explain the benefits. We say, ‘AI is going to cure a bunch of diseases,’ and people say, ‘Okay, that is great, but that is not really my question. My question is: What is my role in the future? What is my economic future? What is my agency? How do I know that my kids and my family will still be able to have fulfilling, creative expression, struggle, drive the world forward, grow, and do this thing together in a way that has worked for a long time?’ When people in AI say, ‘Sure, there are going to be no jobs,’ or ‘50% of jobs are going to go away,’ or ‘90% of jobs are going to go away,’ and ‘AI is going to be smarter than you at everything,’ and ‘We will give you some basic income, but you are not really going to have a role,’ that is horrible. And by the way, if an AI company says, ‘Maybe we are going to destroy all the jobs, and we will be the most valuable company in the world,’ people should look at you like, ‘Yeah, that is a terrible message.’ I do not think the problem is that we have not articulated the upsides. I think people actually believe us. They hear, ‘AI may cure your cancer,’ and they think, ‘That sounds great.’ I think we, as an industry, have failed to explain how people stay in control of determining the future at every step, and how people can still have a meaningful life in all the ways we care about.” ---- From "CNBC Television" YouTube channel, (link in comment)

@dstro777 @laxbakura @Xuhle_ @X Guys, is this the kind of moonlit beach you were talking about? I can kind of get it now. The ocean breeze, the moonlight, and just enough fabric for the wind to catch… yeah, that actually works way too well.

Defillama removed some tvl for a chain that was inflating it and now I see their team writing novels about how tvl is not a good metric to value them Yeah I’m sure it has nothing to do with it being low for their chain